Friday, December 30, 2016

Countdown to nuclear detonation

Every day, I wake up and read The Washington Post and go, "Are you high?" I'm not asking myself, I know that I am not high, but whenever I read the new strange thing DT has done, and I think he must be on some kind of drugs. Cocaine is my guess. Can you imagine what it must be like to work on his communications team? You would have to find yourself lying on a daily basis to try to change the meaning of whatever tweet he has sent at 2 a.m. Last week, it was something about re-starting the arms race with Russia.

His staff then has to scramble to revise the message so that it's less threatening and crazy. KAC (Kelly Anne Conway) has to say things like, "He's not saying that he wants to start competing with Russia and other countries with nuclear arms, but that he wants to be sure that other countries are on warning that they shouldn't start building more weapons." Huh? Also, why? Why is he saying this? It's not in response to anything tangible; it's a reaction he's having to something he read on a social media post or something he's constructed in his mind. Or maybe I am high? Did I go back in time to the Reagan era, where seventh grade me, having just watched people's faces melt off in the post-apocalyptic movie The Day After, wrote a letter to then-President Reagan, begging him not to launch any missiles? And was I slightly confused between watching that movie and listening to Billy Joel's The Nylon Curtain, rampant with songs about the horrors of the Vietnam War ("Remember Charlie/Remember Baker/They left their childhoods/On every acre"), so that I assumed we were still in the middle of a conflict in foreign lands?

What rational person would want to restart an arms race? Is this the same person who claimed that the F1-18 fighter jet cost too much money to produce? Or wait, that was last week and last week doesn't count because now we're in this week. So sayeth the person with the attention span of gnat.

The other reasons it's not okay to be flippant and unclear with your statements (if you are a rationally thinking person) is because you must know that not everyone who reads or hears such things is going to assume you're mostly full of shit. They may not understand that PE is a former reality TV host with no real-world experience in politics, nor should we expect them to give him a pass. Instead, we should always assume that they are going to take him at his literal word (he has no nuance). They don't owe him the benefit of the doubt. Nor do we, though we're being forced to imagine that he can't possibly mean what it sounds like he's saying more than half the time. Does KAC plan on calling every foreign leader every time Trump devises a new way to alarm the world?

Thursday, December 22, 2016

What fresh hell is this

Had lunch today with the work group and got into a conversation about Trump and the man sitting next to me said he understands that I am emotional about how horrible he is, and then he patted my arm in a consoling way.  He meant well, but I was like, Hey, I'm not being emotional, this guy is scary. He's dangerous and unstable. He's tweeting now about starting an arms race again, echoing what Putin said hours earlier. I'm not sure that he's ever had an original idea that he executed. I mean, I believe that he has an actual personality disorder, and not one of the easily treatable ones, but more like a classic narcissist who only sees himself reflected in the world around him, and sees people and situations as tools to improve or threaten his situation. The other part that worries me greatly is that he seems easy to please and easy to anger, and therefore, easy for intelligent people to manipulate. Tell him he's smart and he loves you. Tell him he's an idiot and he says you're an idiot and then exacts whatever revenge he can muster. That ability to take revenge will grow stronger when he's the president. He will be harder to stop.

The other thing that worries me is that I don't understand why the electoral college can't vote against him. What's the vote from the electoral college for if not to stop an unfit candidate from taking office? What would qualify as unfit? Isn't having never held office, having a demonstrable track record of inciting anger and violence, losing the popular vote by nearly three million votes, possibly being involved in  tampering with the election, calling for the assassination of your opponent, not releasing your tax records to show  you have no conflicts of interest, being sued by thousands of people, declaring bankruptcy multiple times, illustrating on a daily basis that you can't control your temper, bragging about being a sexual predator, refusing to stay in the White House or to hold press conferences, disavowing the threat of climate change, wanting to roll back laws that keep businesses and banks from bad practices, running on a platform of lies, and requesting publicly that another government interfere with the election enough to give the electoral people pause? What would disqualify a person then?

 I wish there were one or two things I liked about him, but there are none. I worry that he's going to strip people of their rights, not just women, but LGBT individuals who are not a threat in any way to anyone, and Muslims who simply practice a different religion and people of color other than white who are struggling too. We pay so much attention now to income disparity as it relates to white people, but black people struggle as much and more. Racism is still a problem, and so is sexism. I can't even be articulate about these issues, because I thought we figured this out already. I thought we understood that it's not good for the country if one or two percent of the population makes most of the money, if schools aren't properly funded, if basic human rights aren't protected, if freedom to practice religion is stripped, if gay people are seen as flawed, if all immigrants are labeled as terrorists, rapists, and drug pushers. It's really like time travel--like the country wants to get into a time machine and go back to the 1950s when white people were the majority of income earners, women stayed at home to have babies and didn't work, and black people feared lynching.

Are there no smart people out there who can find a way to fight this? I feel like the people who could make a difference have been sucked up into a vacuum and we're not hearing from them. I fear that this way of conducting politics--via lies and tweets and total spin--is becoming normalized. Is that what Americans want? A president who flies by the seat of his pants and blurts out bullshit in 140 characters on a regular basis, alarming other countries and making claims he can't back up, and feeding this feeling of distrust and paranoia on all sides?

Where are the feminists? Why isn't anyone talking about the rampant sexism that allows for a total charlatan to beat a candidate whose only real handicap is that she's a woman?  I truly believe that if any other male opponent had run against Trump, that man would have won. By virtue of having  a penis. Because most of us, men and women alike, still believe that men know better, can govern better, have greater sense, are more inherently competent than a woman is. It's not true, and I can't imagine a male who exemplifies this more clearly that DT.

After lunch, the man who said he understood that I was emotional (a very nice person, I like him), said, I don't like him either, you know. I voted for Clinton. I said, Oh, okay, good. Glad to hear it.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Manchester by the Sea: A light and heart-warming comedy for the whole family

No, I am joking. It is not a comedy. Beware.

I went with Dan's mom to see Manchester by the Sea last night, not having any idea what it was about or any opinion about Casey Affleck, other than a certain tendency to discredit him because he's Ben Affleck's brother. There's nothing really wrong with Ben Affleck either, except he seems like a total guy, pretty un-nuanced. I am basing this only on the movie Good Will Hunting, which I haven't seen in ten years.

But anyway, it's a good thing I didn't have a clue about the plot of the movie, because I probably would have declined to go. In case you're also unaware, it's a story about a man who works as a janitor in Massachusetts. He's not surly, exactly, but he's not friendly, doesn't connect with people, drinks a lot of beer, and punches men out in bars. You wonder what's wrong with him. His brother (played by one of my favorite actors, Kyle Chandler of Friday Night Lights fame--never saw it--and Bloodline--did see all of the episodes and loved them) dies and Lee/Casey goes back to Manchester to handle the funeral arrangements. He's stoic when he sees his brother's body in the morgue, and you learn in a series of flashbacks that his brother had congestive heart failure, so his death wasn't unexpected. He also has a sixteen year old son and Lee soon discovers that his brother has left his house and boat to the brother, as well as guardianship of his boy, Patrick. The movie moves back and forth between present day and past as we discover why it is that Lee is so hard to reach. I knew when we saw a flashback of him with his then-wife and their three children that things were not going to end well. He didn't appear to have any children in the present day, which meant that only something terrible could have happened to them.

Do you want to know what it was? Keep reading.

Turns out that about six years prior, he had a bunch of loud guy friends over to play pool, they got wired and drunk, he sent them home at 2 a.m., and then stumbled out into the snow to get more beer. When he returned home, the house was on fire. His wife lived, but the children did not. Later, you see two of them emerge from the fire in black body bags. Before he left the house, he started a fire in the fireplace to keep everyone warm, but forgot to put the grate up. Hence, he is accidentally the cause of his children's deaths.

What's great about the movie is that we don't get all of these scenes. Much of that part of the story line is told by Lee to the police after the fact. We also aren't privy to the wife's reaction at the time, though we can imagine it was terrible, and we later see the two of them interact, her trying to apologize for the terrible things she's said. She has moved on, as much as possible, is remarried and has a new baby. He has not moved on.

The conflict of the movie is whether or not returning home and trying to raise his dead brother's son will redeem him, or bring him back to life somehow. And the other great and horrible thing about the movie is that it does not save him. His brother has tried, after his death, to give him another chance to become part of the living world, instead of dragging around alone, but Lee can't do it. At least, not completely. He's better, but, as he tells Patrick near the end, "I can't beat it." He can't forgive himself, he can't forget his children, and he can't trust himself to take care of another person. That's realistic, but does not make for a joyful viewing. We end the movie with Patrick and Lee on the boat fishing, and we see that Lee is better than he was, but also that he will probably never recover. I cried more than once, but the movie isn't sentimental. It is humorous, but I can't recommend it unless you are less sensitive than me, or don't mind stifling back sobs in the middle of a theater. It's also two hours and fifteen minutes long. You keep thinking it's about to end, and then it doesn't. Kind of like grief.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Attending someone else's high school reunion = Dante's Inferno

We went to Dan's 30th reunion a few weeks ago, which is not something I recommend you do as a partner who does not know a single person other than your SO. Women kept thinking they recognized me, but just couldn't place me. There would be a moment where I'd catch someone's eye, and she'd go, Hey! her eyebrows flying up, ready to give me a hug, and I'd be say, Hi! I didn't go to your high school. And then she'd swing away, taking a big sip of chardonnay.

Which reminds me that huge social events where you know almost no one would be so much easier if I still drank. I mean, easier in the short term, because I would stop feeling so awkward after about one glass, but it would likely be bad in the long run, because I stopped drinking in part due to the day-after regrets. I am not a person who can have one glass of any alcohol--like, why? Why just the one when you can have ALL of it? The more you drink, the more you erase all of the uncomfortable feelings and the more you start asking strangers how they feel about abortion or growing up in a rural area or if they ever knew anyone who died tragically, etc. This behavior then leads to being distracted while talking to someone as you begin to wonder when you can end the conversation to make your way back to the bar. The next day, you wake up feeling like your head is full of cotton fluff, and you start to remember, in bits and pieces, all of the weirdo questions you asked or dancing with your arms akimbo to Boy George or flirting with a man in a flannel shirt who turns out to be from another party. I do not like to experience that nearly inevitable day-after glow of shame, and so I stopped drinking four years ago (with one lapse at a single event two years ago, but I am allowing myself not to count that). Four plus years of sobriety and how many slightly painful events where everyone else drank? Five dozen? I've learned that I do get a sort of contact high around people who are drinking. As their inhibitions slip, I too can become looser and sillier and perhaps more myself without worrying about how I appear to them, because they probably won't remember later.

Anyway, going to someone else's high school reunion completely sober is not something I recommend unless you are a documentary filmmaker. It wasn't terrible, but I spent most of the night sitting at a table, attempting to make conversation with one or two other interlopers and waiting for the dessert tray to be served.

I think the other thing that's hard about reunions with people you didn't stay in contact with is that it tends to emphasize rather than close that gap. I mean, you can talk for a while about teachers you had, or other classmates who died or disappeared, but then what? I liked high school, but it wasn't the highlight of my life, and I don't have any super vivid memories outside of a handful of funny incidents. And I know I would attend hoping that something significant would be resolved; I'd run into a few people who would tell me illuminating stories about myself that would cause me to question my identity and re-think my entire life. That happens, right? And of course I'd want all of the stories to be positive, like someone saying "Remember that time after PE when you told me I'd didn't smell that bad? I was planning on running away that night, but your comment stopped me." Or, "Remember in Mr. Shaw's drama class when you did that monologue from The Spoon River Anthology? You were so good, I always thought I'd see you on TV one day." And my fear would be that someone might tell me I was really mean to them, or a snob, or that they'd formed a secret club to make fun of me. From going to Dan's reunion, I'm pretty sure that neither thing will happen.

I'm going anyway. And I'll stay sober and I'll try not to expect too much.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Fear of floods and fire

Post apocalyptic dreams last night, topped off by the smoke alarm beeping to wake me up and the dog going into PTSD afterwards, shivering for ten minutes as he crawled onto our pillow. I dreamed that an old friend of mine and his wife were having marital troubles and he was stalking her, and so we were trying to protect her, but then we realized that the sea level was rising quickly, and he got swallowed up whole by a giant fish. We had to gather our family to escape as we watched the water creep forward to envelope the condo we were in, and it was filled with more huge sharks and other creatures who wanted to eat us. We got into the car and started to drive away, but the threat was that we would have to keep moving to higher and higher ground, because we were going to be inevitably swallowed up by water. My social worker friend at work has informed me dreams of being overtaken by water have to do with something you're not dealing with in your life. I am sure there are many things I should face more readily.

However, I've been reading the "best of" mystery series right before bed, so that's part of the problem. The dream also comes on the heels of a bunch of news stories about Trump's antagonism and conflicts of interest with countries who have a growing stockpile of nuclear weapons. I truly think that this could be the end of the world, and that we will get nuked by Iran or Korea or China. Actually, New York or DC will get nuked, and so we might sort of be destroyed, but not totally. Maybe we would die slowly of radiation poisoning over the next several years. Does the Trump Tower have a bomb shelter?  I keep thinking how we take so much for granted, and worry about such bullshit, when we should be happy we're not living in Aleppo at this moment.

Maybe I should become a survivalist and begin stockpiling batteries and canned goods.   Maybe the people we collectively classify as nut jobs who have bomb shelters are on to something.  They can start over, like the surviving humans in The Walking Dead. Or maybe this is all showmanship and this PE has no intention of causing damage, but I would say that because he has a personality disorder of some kind (most likely narcissism), he will only become more out of touch with reality and less inclined to consider the consequences of his words and actions as his power grows.

To recap: we have elected a man whose wife cribbed a speech from the current first lady, who jokes about shooting someone on the street and still getting elected, who mocks disabled people, who brags about sexually assaulting women, who says his daughter is hot, who recommends that gun activists might influence the election by shooting the other candidate, who communicates policy via social media, who brags about not ever having read a book or sent an email, who attacks celebrities and college students and anyone else who opposes him, who lies repeatedly and bigly (as he would say), who has no experience in office, who refuses to release his taxes to reveal potential conflicts of interest, who opposes regulation because it might get in the way of business practices, who has selected people to surround him who are affiliated with white supremacy, who constantly reinforces negative stereotypes about minorities and women, who may or may not have made promises to a Russian leader in exchange for influencing the election, who constantly undermines institutions meant to protect our country, and who will use any opportunity for personal financial benefit. That's the list I can come up with off the top of my head.

I would like to see someone come up with a list of like offenses about Hillary Clinton. Not her husband, who is not running for office, but Hillary.  And one of those things cannot be that she stood by her man while he cheated on her, sorry. That does not make her unfit for office. Something else, beyond the abuse of email, which if you're working in an office and send even one personal email from a work computer, you are doing too. Not that it's okay to do this, most especially if you're in public office. But I've yet to hear a compelling argument that the two candidates are equivalent in their transgressions. Clinton is a career politician, and that comes with all the good and the bad of such a role. For me, the fact that she understands the political landscape is a bonus, not a detriment, most particularly when you compare her to Donald, who believes he doesn't need to know what's happening in the world to understand it.

Also, because it's the holiday season, I keep thinking how we act as if the U.S. President is Santa Claus, or Jesus, or someone who is supposed to fix everything around us and who is the cause of all the ills of the country. The president has limited powers. S/he cannot fix or destroy everything. Whatever you happen to love or hate about Obama or Clinton or Trump, they are not the sole gift givers or gift taker-away-ers.  At least I hope this proves true with Donald, because he is a Scrooge way more than he is a Santa Claus.

Add your own paranoid cat pictures

I find it utterly infuriating that we have so little information from the PE that half the articles written about him are supposition, based on previous positions while still using the caveat that he is likely to change his mind. Sentences like, "He said he was going to repeal Obamacare, but then he softened on it, but now he's appointing people who want to do away with it, but yesterday he said he believes all Americans should have health care, but an hour later, he gave a thumbs up to a private organization meant to review policies, but today, he's saying he'll let us know in another week or so."  That's firstly. Secondly, it is fucking unacceptable that the PE refuses to live in DC and, thirdly, it's ridiculous and embarrassing that he also claims to be smart enough not to need daily security briefings. "They'll come to me if something's up," is basically what he told a reporter on Fox News (see--I have been trying to get outside of my bubble).

DO your job. That is your job. You may have to go to meetings you don't want to attend. You are not a king, you're now a politician, which is what you said you wanted to be.  And guess what? A lot of that shit will be boring. But that's too bad, because you are an elected official to the highest office we have, and now, you have to do things you don't want to do. Or else leave office. That's the deal, dude.

Many like to give him credit for having this underlying secret plan that we're just not yet aware of, but I suspect it's more like a scattershot approach based on his mood and who he likes or who he's mad at, and also based on an understandable lack of knowledge about what he's dealing with. He's not a stupid person, so while it's not ideal or even really acceptable that he needs to know more about the intricacies of foreign policy, it's comprehensible because these things are deep and complicated and unclear. But he needs to try to understand it before making any rash moves, and that's where he's dangerous. I don't think he is premeditated, and that's okay, if you're dealing with a TV show and gambling only with ratings, but it is decidedly not okay if you are making decisions that can lead to nuclear disaster.

I hear planes fly close to our house now and I think, Is that someone getting ready to drop a bomb? Am I wrong in thinking that diplomacy is a delicate balance that requires a careful touch? I confess I didn't pay that much attention in world history class, though I had an awesome history teacher (Mr. O'Donnell, a bearded man who used to dress up in costumes to get us excited about the Vikings or Hannibal the elephant guy), but I am pretty sure you aren't supposed to make impulsive decisions with countries who have been fighting for centuries.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Flip again

I am not a person who believes in conspiracy theories generally and I don't read overtly fringe websites, though I did stumble on one the other day claiming that the 911 attacks were perpetuated by insiders, not Muslim terrorists. I don't believe that the pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots with research to stop a cure for cancer. I don't believe that JFK was killed by two gunman. I find it difficult to believe that Princess Diana's car crash was set up by the royal family. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if any one of these things are true, because deception is often just under the surface when money or power is concerned. I'll admit that one of my favorite quotes is "behind every great fortune is a crime," though the actual quote by Balzac is actually "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed."

At the same time, I wouldn't have believed you ten years ago if you had told me that banks and Wall Street would conspire to give subprime mortgage loans to people they knew couldn't afford them, thereby causing the collapse of the housing market and leaving many bankrupt. And I am not entirely sure what happened with Watergate, but I am certain that many Americans were shocked to discover President Nixon was involved in a massive cover-up and multiple abuses of power against the DNC. And when Trump won despite almost all statistical evidence saying that he wouldn't, I was shocked. Then everyone from the NYT to Nate Silver's 538 blog to Michael Moore found rational reasons to explain it and suggest that they were only a little wrong or were looking for data in the wrong places (exit polls weren't accurate, more Americans were upset than we realized, half the nation bailed on voting). It still didn't make sense to me. I thought from the beginning that something was wrong with the numbers, but at the same time, as everyone scrambled to re-position themselves into understanding what had happened, I had to acknowledge that I was possibly naive and misled. I thought too that it was strange that Trump kept claiming that the election was rigged, in a way that suggested either that he too was positive he would lose, or he knew that it actually was rigged. He often makes claims that are projections of his own psyche, so it wouldn't be that strange for him to tell the truth without even being aware that he was doing so, in the same way that he lies without seeming to realize he's lying.

However though (as one of my English teachers, Mrs. Bytheway used to say), I heard Michael Lewis talking on NPR this week about his new book, The Undoing Project, and he was talking about this idea of confirmation bias, defined by Psychology Today as occurring "from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true." In other words, if I believe that Trump is a mean liar, whenever he opens his mouth, I interpret what he says as lying and mean, even if it isn't (but it usually is). So, I will continue to try to see things more objectively, or at least be aware that I am viewing things through a certain lens of my own bias.

But could it be true that the election was rigged? And could it be true that the CIA will investigate? And that we may have to vote again? Or elect Hil? I'd rather vote again without any interference, because I cannot imagine the vitriol and resistance she would face if she were named president elect at this point. I call do over.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Dreaming of a Non-White Man Christmas

I gave up the news for about two weeks after the election because I couldn't stomach it and didn't want to see his gloating orange face on TV, spreading more fear and mistrust every time he speaks. I have since let the news back in a little at a time, and am trying to do what someone recommended recently; to get out of our bubbles of news and try to listen to other points of view. I've attempted that too, though maybe not as much as I should. I am trying to watch Fox News or to at least pay attention to voices of those who are happy to have Trump as president, so I can understand why and maybe find a point of connection. But then I'll read about him bad-mouthing a union rep or giving a rally where he makes the idea of using gender neutral pronouns seem like a joke (at his rally yesterday, he pointed out that he was named "Man of the Year" not "Person of the Year," making the point that inclusion is for nasty women only), and then I turn sour again. 
I've also been reading a lot about how liberals are too polite and need to be more like him and employ similar tactics by raging instead of disagreeing. No one has said we should start telling outright lies, but it seems that you have to inflammatory to be heard. I've thought a little bit about what lies I could try to spread about him--like the one his former staffer told about Clinton that almost got people shot in the pizza parlor this week--but it's hard to stretch the imagination to something more outrageous than what he's actually doing. Something about his teeny, tiny micro penis? But that's juvenile, right? (And probably true anyway). And, more importantly, it doesn't feel good to get mean. It feels ugly. Is there some way to fight back that doesn't lower you to the status of an internet troll? I've had maybe one unhappy exchange with a Trump supporter on Twitter who didn't like what I wrote, but she wasn't mean, and I still didn't like it. 
I'm afraid too. I'm afraid to hurt someone's feelings or to misunderstand what someone means or to be perceived as a jerk. And I'm afraid of hateful responses, because I also don't want to get hurt. Maybe Twitter should shut down for a week or two. Could they do that? Could they force the PE to speak to reporters instead of broadcasting via social media platforms in short, hateful bursts? 
The victory tour rallies he's holding across the country feel more like a continued push to splinter the country and reinforce rhetoric of dissension against anyone who believes in equality measures, justice, or the use of non-gendered language. And now today, you have more of the same with him blasting the CIA for even suggesting Russia was involved in the election, despite mounting evidence that Russia's interference most certainly had an impact on voting. I hesitate to hope that an investigation could delay his inauguration or impact his nomination, but it would make sense given that he won the electoral colleges by a slim margin. Would they really consider doing another election? Something is rotten in Putin land. Can't they force him to release his taxes so that we can see what his ties are to other countries or governments? Someone must know. Please tell. 

Friday, December 9, 2016

Fear and loathing in the cabinet

If I could find one positive thing about Trump, maybe I could somehow stomach these horrid choices he's making for high profile positions. Like, one person who is in favor of some form of social justice. These are comically bad people for the positions they're taking on; either because they have little to no experience with the role they're about to have, or because they are so far removed from the issues they must face due to their personal wealth. A doctor with no political experience as director of HUD; a man who believes people in poverty should do the whole up-by-the-boot-straps thing and will likely support slashing public housing initiatives. An EPA director who doesn't believe in climate change.  A vice president who is adamantly anti gay, and anti gay marriage, who believes in conversion therapy. A national security adviser who was fired by the Obama administration for mismanagement and who tweeted that he believes that "fear of Muslims is rational." An opponent of higher minimum wages for the labor department (sorry, struggling lower middle class folks who need a living wage, not from this guy).  A former Goldman Sachs billionaire for the treasurer. Another billionaire for secretary of commerce. These are not people who understand the struggles of the lower or middle class; they are people who want to give tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulate the government so they can make more money. Who else? Another climate-change skeptic for the Interior Department. An outspoken critic of Obamacare for Department of Health and Human Services. A secretary of the Department of Education who supports school vouchers, so that families who can get their kids away from "those icky poor people" (quotes mine).  An ambassador to the United Nations who has no international experience. Best of all, an alt-right wing KKK nationalist for chief strategist. Like, it almost funny  that he is not able to choose a single person who might have a moderate view.

My hope is that the people he chooses will actually get close to those whose lives they are trying to impact negatively--talk to some people who don't have affordable housing, some teachers who are over-stressed and need more money in schools, some refugees who want to live in a safe country--and find that they can't support legislation that knowingly create a greater divide. My other hope is that people will continue to speak out about what's happening and to use their own voices to say what they think.  So, if you're a writer, write about it. That's what I have to do. I don't think I can in good conscience blog about The Bachelor while this is going on. It feels totally wrong not to do something more meaningful. Everyone--not just people who voted for Hillary or people who voted for Donald--should share their thoughts and try to find a way to make sense of why a large section of the country thought we needed a narcissistic, thin-skinned, creepy reality star in the White House. And why we are surprised when he turns out to be as shitty of a person in office as he was prior to taking office. If not shittier.